Talk:Qibya massacre
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An event mentioned in this article is an October 14 selected anniversary.
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster Management. |
- Fact sheet from the US-Israel Cooperative Enterprise
- The Palestinian perspective, edited by an accountant living in the United Arab Emirates
Links to be reviewed: It doesn't seem to me that the links below are either objective or reveal any new information. I really wonder whether they're necessary, unless it's propaganda one's after. --Uri
taken from the article. I think the article gives already a quite complete review - the description on the link pages are much shorter, further more some are quite biased. --Elian
-
- Quoting Mav.."...is trying to say that the Qibya massacre is a clear case of terrorism and I disagree - esp since that would make Ariel Sharon a terrorist by implication."
- I think your logic here is flawed, Mav. You disagree with X because it implies S = T? (Humorosely: You're assuming that S might be somehow surprised by the idea that he might be a T and called such...) Im sure you dont want the T word to be limited to the definition that is favored by any one party - A massacre by a state is "a tragedy" as Clinton called the Qana massacre of over a hundred. By your definition, only those without a state can be called T's. Consider the world courts condemnation of the US in its actions in Nicaragua. Assymetric warfare, low intensity warfare - covert sabotage operations, and B-1 bomber are all, more or less, different names for the thing we call T. An NPOV policy must not be Americentric either. -'Vert
-
- If the definition of the word terrorism is too broad then it looses all meaning whatsoever - that was my point. As Ed Poor mentions on that page if we are too liberal with the definition then all the Allies of WWII are terrorists since we all deliberately bombed civilians in order to break their morale and gain a military and political victory. --mav
-
- By your answer your saying its a political definition. As such, should we even be using it? What is too broad? I dont think its too broad to call Sharon a terrorist, because Israel isnt at war with Palestine. Its "not a state", after all. Who are the Palestinians, then, and what word would describe a person who exacts terror upon defenseless civilians? The best answer to this Ive seen is essentially: "all Palestinians are terrorists." Broad definitions indeed. -'Vert
Qibya is'nt in the "northwestern West Bank", it is only a little north of Lod. I changed it to "western West Bank". --zero
The Jordanian Arab Legion made no attempts to stop these infiltrations;
Not true. Read Palestinian infiltration for some explanations.
- You misunderstand. If you want to clarify this, fine! All I am saying is that we should not delete this topic without comment! RK 01:59, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
sometimes Jordan unofficially assisted these efforst. If the first paragraph is false, then this one is to.
- Your conclusion does not logically follow. That is an error in logic. Furthermore, we need to realize that different people in the Jordanian government had different motives, and took different actions. RK 01:59, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
-
- Then we need to prove their complicity, which we can't.
The infiltrators carrued out a series of terrorist actions against Israeli civilians. Like? From 1949 to 1953 Israel lost 24 civilans because of the infiltration. [4] paragraph 139-140. Compared to Jordans 77 killed because of retaliation.
- I don't understand. Why do you admit that terrorist actions occured...and then imply we should not mention this, because the State of Israel held some deadly retaliation. We don't use one fact to cancel out another fact! No one is trying to censor the fact that Arabs died. Why hide the fact that Jews died? This is an encyclopedia, not a tit-for-tat game. RK 01:59, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
-
- Because contrary to the violence from the IDF and the Fedayeen, the violence from the displaced Palestinians did not have a political goal. 24 kills over four years in separate incidents does not constitute terrorism. A strong case could be made that IDF's violence which had the goal of sustaining the infiltration by causing fear was terrorism.
Jordanian infiltrators Jordanians on Jordanian territory is not infiltrating.
- You are using wordplay to confuse the meaning of the article. If you think the article should be phrased better, fine! But don't play wordgames. Please contribute in a constructive fashion. RK 01:59, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
but refused to condemn the series of terrorist actions which led to Israel's reprisal.
Since there were no terrorist actions what was there to condemn?
- BL, stop lying about murdering Jews. You yourself that Jews were murdered in terrorist actions...and a few sentences later you deny it? Your contempt for murdered Jews is not funny. RK 01:59, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
-
- If I murder a Jew it is murder. If I and some friends murder a Jew because he is a Jew, it is racism. If I and my friends murder a jew and leave a note at the corpse "this is how it goes for Jews in my country" it is terrorism. But murder is not the same thing as terrorism.
It is unclear, however, whether the magazine's report was based on direct evidence or hearsay, possibly under the influence of bitter Jordanian officials.
Since when is WP a place for orginal research? AFAIK, that newspaper article has never been critisized. And if that's good then why not after this:
- The articles have been criticised. RK 01:59, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
-
- Tell me about it. And Ariel Sharon's autobiography has not? BL 20:58, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I couldn't belive my ears. As I went back over each step of the operation, I began to understand what must have happened. For years Israeli reprisal raids had never succeeded in doing more than blowing up a few outlying buildings, if that. Expecting the same, some Arab families must have stayed in their houses rather than running away. In those big stone houses... some could easily have hidden in the cellars and back rooms, keeping quiet when the paratroopers went in to check and yell out a warning. The result was this tragedy that had happened
insert this:
It is unclear, however, whether the old geezer is lying or not. It is possible that he is just trying to cover his ass because he would not be able to continue his career as a prime minister if he told the truth.
And this:
Previous reports by Arabs and by UN officials of masacres later turned out to be exagerrations; Israelis doubt the honesty of many of these reports.
Is referring to what? Unless those issues can be resolved I don't think those statements should be included. BL 01:51, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Please stop lying. Previously you admitted that this used to be the standard Palestinian position. Many people here have already cited who holds this position. Stop pretending you are ignorant of this indisputable fact. RK 23:08, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
BL writes "Because contrary to the violence from the IDF and the Fedayeen, the violence from the displaced Palestinians did not have a political goal. 24 kills over four years in separate incidents does not constitute terrorism."
- Murdering only 24 Jews is not enough to constitute terrorism? By what Nazi like standards do you operate? Please cease and desist in your hatespeech. I am appalled by your grotestque statements. RK 23:08, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
A) Since you did not disagree with most changes, why did you do a full revert?
B) No, murdering Jews in itself does not constitute terrorism.
C) I find it very hard to find a "indisputable fact" indisputable when you cannot even provide a real reference to this "indisputable fact". It seems to me that you are hunting for leaves, sources like "but everybody knows that!", "you have also admitted it (I don't know where but I know you have!)" doesn't cut it in an academic discussion. BL 17:29, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Pardon me for sticking my nose into this edit war, but I made a few small changes myself:
- I replaced one use of "recently": don't use that word, it becomes obsolete in no time
- Sharett was more than Foreign Minister, he was acting Prime Minister (BG was on leave for some reason). Moreover, he wasn't "casually informed", he was misinformed, which was the main reason it caused a huge rift between him and BG.
- I took out the Time Magazine quote altogether. I don't think it belongs here unless it can be shown that Time had independent sources of information. If they just quoted the usual suspects then we should do better. If someone looks up the magazine and finds they interviewed eyewitnesses, then we can put it back something like "Eyewitnesses interviewed by Time Magazine claimed that ...". In other words, the eyewitnesses are speaking, not Time, and we are not stating an opinion of their veracity.
- I removed "Many consider the operation an act of terrorism.". Surely our readers are able to read the facts and decide for themselves whether it is terrorism or not. I think the "terrorism" classification is just a polemical game that we shouldn't play.
On the matter of some facts:
- BL is correct that the Jordanian Army tried to stop infiltration. It was very well documented by the Israel-Jordan Mixed Armistice Commission (MAC). However, I wonder if it belongs here anyway. I think that this article should just point to Palestinian infiltration for background, but I didn't change anything. Besides, Israel was not just retaliating to incursions but intentionally trying to provoke an open conflict with the Arab states. (This is well known, but belongs on the other page; all in good time.)
- Second, the SC did not "refuse to condemn the series of terrorist actions which led to Israel's reprisal". Nobody asked it to, because it was not regarded as the SC's job to pass judgement on anyone except member states. This rule has only changed in recent years. What the SC did was "call on all parties to work together to prevent..." and stuff like that. All events alleged by either Jordan or Israel were investigated by the MAC.
An interesting aspect of the incident which is not mentioned is the massive fight that broke out between Sharett and Lavon (with Ben Gurion supporting Lavon) over this incident. Sharett was especially angry that it had been done behind his back, but he had to take the heat (as acting PM). Later he wrote "I condemned the Qibya affair that exposed us in front of the whole world as a gang of bloodsuckers, capable of mass massacres regardless, it seems, of whether their actions may lead to war. I warned that this stain will stick to us and will not be washed away for many years to come." -- zero 16:44, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Added this page to the Oasis, please join us there Zero0000. OneVoice 12:33, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
AFAIK, the infiltration level was measured in how many times per year Israel reported incursions to the MAC. It therefore seems very hard to decide whether the infiltrations decreased or not. Avi Shlaim in The Iron Wall uses a wording to the effect that Jordan did manage to prevent a much larger portion of the incursions after Qibya. Either way I'd like to see a source. BL 19:39, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, indeed source citations are very desireable. A way to footnote the wiki would allow us to address an issue, provide sources, and have that information retained for the people that follow after and wish to edit the article. Very desireable. OneVoice 19:47, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Shocking bias from the title onwards
This article seems to be little more than PLO propaganda. Should be substantially revised or deleted. One of the worst examples of bias I've seen on Wikipedia. Massacre indeed. Coqsportif 15:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- I've removed the tag. Coqsportif is trolling. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:41, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
Shocking bias?! You obviously do not know what you are talking about. And PROPAGANDA?! THE REASON YOU DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON IS BECAUSE OF ISRAELI PROPAGANDA!!
[edit] Dumb Question
There are two Google lists for two articles with identical (I think) text - Qibya_operation and Qibya_massacre - What is the reason?
Some people don't think murdering more than fifty Arabs counts as a "massacre".
It is a dumb question because it ignors the circumstances.
[edit] Evacuation?
When the village had been cleared of resistance, Israeli soldiers laid explosives around many of the houses and blew them up after calling for residents to evacuate.
I was under the impression the residents were still inside the buildings when they were blown up.
[edit] In addition.
In addition to that last point, a quote from a UN observer who inspected the scene afterwards:
"One story was repeated time after time: the bullet splintered door, the body sprawled across the threshold, indicating the inhabitants had been forced by heavy fire to stay inside until their homes were blown up over them."
[edit] Israelis killed
I edited the number of Israelis killed by infiltrations from Jordon prior to Qibya. Someone had put in a total of 459, which is an over-inflated figure. Back in 1953, Israel gave the UN the actual number of Israelis killed by infiltrators. It's 89. 57 of those were killed between 1949 and the end of 1952 and 32 were killed in the first part of 1953. Here's the link http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/eef5490a45758c7c05256727006e0e6c
How many non-Israeli individuals were killed? Any record?
[edit] Article title
Suggest renaming to something more neutral like "Qibya incident" or "Qibya raid" Rune X2 14:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Operation Shoshana
I don't think this information is true and the link doesn't prove anything. Is there a reliable source for this ? Alithien 20:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes. Benny Morris, Israel's Border Wars, 1993 confirms Alithien 18:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] references
Hi. What are your references for the number of civil victims in Israel due to infiltration (137 in '51; 162 in '52 and 160 until nov.'53) ? In "Righteous Victims", Morris is talking about 200 between 1948 and 1956 (p.298 in the French version). fr:Pierre Razoux, a french historian, is talking about 182 from 1948 to autumn 1952. Thank you. fr:user:ceedjee —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.246.202.115 (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC).
